Hugendubel.info - Die B2B Online-Buchhandlung 

Merkliste
Die Merkliste ist leer.
Bitte warten - die Druckansicht der Seite wird vorbereitet.
Der Druckdialog öffnet sich, sobald die Seite vollständig geladen wurde.
Sollte die Druckvorschau unvollständig sein, bitte schliessen und "Erneut drucken" wählen.

Unjust Enrichment.

The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution.
Duncker & Humblot GmbHerschienen am01.07.2013
'... to be consulted before any significant legal debate.' W. J. Stewart in: Scots Law Times 1995 This volume is concerned with the history of the concept of, or of the remedies for, unjust enrichment in the Civil law and the Common law. But this history is radically different in the two systems - different both in the starting point of each system and in the methods by which progress from that starting point was made. What for the Civil law is the starting point is for the Common law the ultimate outcome. The Civil law from its earliest medieval beginnings had before its eyes, at least as a potential unifying principle, the concept of unjust enrichment which it found in the Corpus Iuris, whereas it is only very recently (and outside the chronological scope of this volume) that the Common law has come to accept such a principle. The methods by which the Civil lawyers progressed from their starting point towards the well articulated concepts of the modern law were those of the interpreter and elaborator of texts which had their own unquestioned authority. And their discussions, which were those of the scholar and the school-room, are well documented. For the Common lawyers, on the other hand, the starting point was nothing but the practice of the courts and their methods were those appropriate to that practice. The plaintiff's remedy in a particular case was everything. Moreover, since the practice of the courts until very recent times is very imperfectly evidenced, the course of the development of the Common law is often difficult to trace. The researches contained in this volume show that it is only with benefit of hindsight, and then only to very limited extent, that one can see that development as leading to the recent acceptance of a doctrine of unjust enrichment.mehr
Verfügbare Formate
BuchKartoniert, Paperback
EUR99,90

Produkt

Klappentext'... to be consulted before any significant legal debate.' W. J. Stewart in: Scots Law Times 1995 This volume is concerned with the history of the concept of, or of the remedies for, unjust enrichment in the Civil law and the Common law. But this history is radically different in the two systems - different both in the starting point of each system and in the methods by which progress from that starting point was made. What for the Civil law is the starting point is for the Common law the ultimate outcome. The Civil law from its earliest medieval beginnings had before its eyes, at least as a potential unifying principle, the concept of unjust enrichment which it found in the Corpus Iuris, whereas it is only very recently (and outside the chronological scope of this volume) that the Common law has come to accept such a principle. The methods by which the Civil lawyers progressed from their starting point towards the well articulated concepts of the modern law were those of the interpreter and elaborator of texts which had their own unquestioned authority. And their discussions, which were those of the scholar and the school-room, are well documented. For the Common lawyers, on the other hand, the starting point was nothing but the practice of the courts and their methods were those appropriate to that practice. The plaintiff's remedy in a particular case was everything. Moreover, since the practice of the courts until very recent times is very imperfectly evidenced, the course of the development of the Common law is often difficult to trace. The researches contained in this volume show that it is only with benefit of hindsight, and then only to very limited extent, that one can see that development as leading to the recent acceptance of a doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Details
Weitere ISBN/GTIN9783428479825
ProduktartE-Book
EinbandartE-Book
FormatPDF
Erscheinungsjahr2013
Erscheinungsdatum01.07.2013
Seiten334 Seiten
SpracheEnglisch
Dateigrösse22727
Artikel-Nr.2887271
Rubriken
Genre9200

Inhalt/Kritik

Inhaltsverzeichnis
1;Inhaltsverzeichnis;8
2;Eltjo Schrage and Barry Nicholas: Unjust Enrichment and the Law of Restitution: A Comparison;10
3;J. H. Baker: The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600 - 1800;32
3.1;Fictions in Assumpsit;34
3.2;Quantum Meruit;36
3.3;Money laid out (or Money paid);42
3.4;Goods sold;46
3.5;Money had and received;48
3.6;The Absence of Theory;54
4;Jan Hallebeek: Developments in Mediaeval Roman Law;60
4.1;I. Introduction;60
4.1.1;1. Enrichment and restitution;60
4.1.2;2. The prohibition of unjust enrichment as a rule of law;61
4.1.3;3. The actual purport of the general prohibition of unjust enrichment;62
4.1.4;4. The general prohibition of unjust enrichment is an argument in legal reasoning;64
4.1.5;5. The general prohibition of unjust enrichment is a reason to grant remedies;65
4.1.6;6. Divergent opinions;66
4.2;II. Cases of unjust enrichment;67
4.3;III. Enrichment caused by prohibited interference (C. 2.18.24);71
4.3.1;1. The teachings of Martinus;72
4.3.2;2. The rejecting of Martinus teachings;72
4.3.3;3. More exceptions to the provision of C. 2.18.24;73
4.3.4;4. Ultramontane jurists;75
4.3.5;5. Postglossators;76
4.4;IV. Building on another s property;78
4.4.1;1. Means of protection;78
4.4.2;2. Special cases: repairing and rebuilding; the land is claimed by hereditatis petitio;79
4.4.3;3. Building as management of another s affairs;81
4.4.4;4. The view of Martinus: the builder has an action against the landowner;83
4.4.5;5. A middle course;84
4.4.6;6. Rejection of Martinus doctrine; the presumption of gift;85
4.4.7;7. The majority position;87
4.4.8;8. The Gloss;88
4.4.9;9. Ultramontane jurists;88
4.4.10;10. Postglossators;90
4.5;V. Transactions made by those without authority to alienate;94
4.5.1;1. The teachings of Martinus;95
4.5.2;2. The rejection of Martinus teachings by Bulgarus;95
4.5.3;3. The majority position;97
4.5.4;4. The Gloss;99
4.5.5;5. Ultramontane jurists;99
4.5.6;6. Postglossators;100
4.6;VI. The general prohibition as the ultimate foundation of remedies;103
4.6.1;1. Liability of the third party in spite of the fact that the intermediary was a free person (C. 4.26.7.3);104
4.6.2;2. An actio negotiorum gestorum in spite of the lack of intention to act for the principals benefit (D. 3.5.5.5);107
4.6.3;3. A condiction in spite of the lack of negotium (D. 12.1.32);109
4.7;VII. The general rule of law;112
4.7.1;1. A rule of the Law of Nations;113
4.7.2;2. Where the maxim has no effect;113
4.7.3;3. The ultramontane jurists;115
4.7.4;4. Postglossators;116
4.8;VIII. Conclusions;118
5;David Ibbetson: Unjust Enrichment in England before 1600;122
5.1;The Framework of Unjust Enrichment;124
5.2;Qualified Transactions;126
5.3;Proprietary Claims;134
5.3.1;a) The Action of Account;134
5.3.2;b) Vitiated Transfers;135
5.3.3;c) Emblements;141
5.4;Contractual Ideas;142
5.4.1;a) Contracts by Those with Limited Capacity;142
5.4.2;b) Contribution;144
5.4.3;c) Indemnity;145
5.4.4;d) Other Situations;148
5.5;Status-based Conception;149
5.6;Conclusion;149
6;Gareth Jones: The Role of Equity in the English Law of Restitution;150
6.1;I. Common Law and Equity;150
6.1.1;1. The Common Law;150
6.1.2;2. Equity;152
6.2;II. The Role of the Historian of Equity;152
6.3;III. Equitable Remedies and the Law of Restitution;153
6.3.1;1. The Constructive Trust and the Equitable Lien;153
6.3.1.1;a) Introduction;153
6.3.1.2;b) The Case Law;155
6.3.2;2. Tracing Trust Property;161
6.3.3;3. The Right to Contribution;165
6.3.4;4. Subrogation;168
6.3.5;5. Account;169
7;Peters Birks: Restitution for Wrongs;172
7.1;I. Introduction: An Unequivocal Example;173
7.2;II. Three Paths to Restitution after a Wrong;174
7.3;III. Personal and Proprietary Restitution;176
7.3.1;1. Obligations: Personal Claims based on Accountability;178
7.3.1.1;a) Breach of Contract;180
7.3.1.2;b) Waiver of Tort;183
7.3.1.3;c) Equitable Accounts of the Profits of Wrongs;188
7.3.2;2. Proprietary Restitution for Wrongs;192
8;Robert Feenstra: Grotius Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment as a Source of Obligation: its Origin and its Influence in Roman-Dutch Law;198
8.1;I. The Inieidinge tot de Hollandsche rechtsgeleerdheid;201
8.2;II. De iure belli ac pacis;208
8.3;III. Grotius letter to his brother of March 1616;220
8.4;IV. Grotius influence in the 17th century, in particular on Huber;223
8.5;V. Grotius influence in the 18th century, in particular on the decisions of the Hooge Raad reported by Bijnkershoek and Pauw;229
8.6;VI. Conclusion;237
9;Berthold Kupisch: Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung. Usus modernus pandectarum in Deutschland unter Berücksichtigung des preußischen Allgemeinen Landrechts (ALR) und des österreichischen Allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs (ABGB);238
9.1;I. Einführung;238
9.1.1;1. Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung (Begriff); Usus modernus pandectarum; ALR und ABGB;238
9.1.2;2. Das rezipierte römische Recht: condictiones; condictiones und aequitas; actio de in rem verso und negotiorum gestio; actio in factum;239
9.2;II. Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung im Usus modernus;241
9.2.1;1. Kondiktionen;241
9.2.1.1;a) c. indebiti: Einzelprobleme;241
9.2.1.2;b) c. ob rem;248
9.2.1.3;c) c. sine causa;249
9.2.2;2. Actio de in rem verso und negotiorum gestio;250
9.2.2.1;a) Vorbemerkung;250
9.2.2.2;b) Actio de in rem verso;250
9.2.2.2.1;(a) Dreiecksfälle;250
9.2.2.2.2;(b) Zweigliedrige Versionsfälle (sog. untechnische versio in rem);252
9.2.2.3;c) Actio de in rem verso und negotiorum gestio;252
9.2.3;3. Allgemeine Bereicherungsklage?;253
9.2.3.1;a) Einzelfälle;253
9.2.3.1.1;(a) Bereicherungshaftung des gutgläubigen Besitzers für verbrauchte Früchte;253
9.2.3.1.2;(b) Ersatz von Verwendungen (impensae) des gutgläubigen Besitzers;256
9.2.3.1.3;(c) Ausgleich unter (zwei) Gesamtschuldnern (correi debendi);256
9.2.3.1.4;(d) Gewinn aus Weiterverkauf einer fremden Sache;258
9.2.3.2;b) Actio in factum ex aequitate und officium iudicis;258
9.2.4;4. Systematische Einordnung der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung;261
9.2.4.1;a) Usus modernus;261
9.2.4.2;b) Codex Theresianus; Entwurf Horten;262
9.2.5;5. Umfang der Bereicherungshaftung (Wegfall der Bereicherung);263
9.2.6;6. Subsidiarität des Bereicherungsanspruchs;265
9.3;III. ALR und ABGB;266
9.4;Anhang;270
9.4.1;A Few Legal Paragraphs;270
10;Paolo Gallo: Remedies for Unjust Enrichment in the History of Italian Law and in the Codice Civile;276
10.1;I. Remedies for unjust enrichment in the history of Italian law;276
10.2;II. Remedies for the recovery of unjust enrichment in the Codice civile;279
10.2.1;1. "Gestione degli affari altrui" (negotiorum gestio);279
10.2.2;2. "Pagamento dell indebito" (condictio);280
10.2.3;3. "Arricchimento senza causa";281
10.2.4;4. Imposed enrichment;286
10.2.5;5. Indirect enrichment;287
10.3;III. Proposals;289
11;Hector L. MacQueen and W. David H. Sellar: Unjust Enrichment in Scots Law;290
11.1;Introductory;290
11.2;The Foundations: Equity and Natural Law; Stair;291
11.2.1;1. Stair s Classification;293
11.2.2;2. Eighteenth-century Writers;298
11.3;Development of the General Action by the Courts;301
11.3.1;1. Negotiorum Gestio and the Actio de in Rem Verso;302
11.3.2;2. Recompense;306
11.3.2.1;a) Improvements to Another s Land;306
11.3.2.2;b) The mala fide builder / repairer;309
11.3.2.3;c) Other cases of recompense;311
11.3.2.4;d) Subsidiarity;313
11.3.3;Scots and English Law;315
11.3.3.1;1. Kames and Mansfield;315
11.3.3.2;2. The Influence of English Law;318
11.3.4;Conclusions;322
12;Eltjo J. H. Schrage: The Law of Restitution: the History of Dutch Legislation;324
12.1;I. Jurisdiction in Holland in the 17th and 18th century;324
12.2;II. Codifications;326
12.2.1;1. The draft by Farjon;326
12.2.2;2. The draft by Van der Linden;326
12.2.3;3. The first draft by Kemper;327
12.2.4;4. The second draft code by Kemper;327
12.2.5;5. The Burgerlijk Wetboek;328
12.2.6;6. Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek (1992);331
13;Verzeichnis der Mitarbeiter;335mehr